So does this court ruling mean he is undead?

[calronmoonflower]

DEAD MAN WALKING: Legally dead dad must stay that way even if he's technically alive

Such a dead beet, that he is considered legally dead!

 

[jonesy]

Ohio law sets a three-year window to challenge a decision in a declaration of death.

Miller had been legally dead for nearly two decades.

Being dead meant his ex-wife wasn’t chasing him for child support, but it also meant he couldn’t get a driver’s license or Social Security card.

First thought that came to my mind: being dead doesn't actually stop the IRS coming after you, does it?

 

[Umbran]

First thought that came to my mind: being dead doesn't actually stop the IRS coming after you, does it?

Nope. They can come after your estate.

But, his death seems to be a state-level ruling, not a federal one.

 

[Janx]

This seems to be a failing of simple logic, the second I've heard in the last week.

It's pretty simple. Man disappeared. Was declared dead for reasons that made sense.

Now he is back, as he wasn't actually dead.

this is a simple clerical error, given the man's behavior, the fault is on him (he's the one who hid).

So, correct the glitch. he's alive.

He owes people money who paid out benefits on his deadness.

He owes people money for unpaid debts (child support).

Or execute him, to make reality match the data.

It's really that simple.


The fact that Ohio has a mechanism to declare somebody dead, and a mechanism to repeal it with a short time window is a flaw in their legal system. Obviously nobody foresaw such an occurrence, but the point of having a human on the bench is to resolve such unlikely intersections of reality and law.

 

[Kramodlog]

This seems to be a failing of simple logic, the second I've heard in the last week.

It's pretty simple. Man disappeared. Was declared dead for reasons that made sense.

Now he is back, as he wasn't actually dead.

this is a simple clerical error, given the man's behavior, the fault is on him (he's the one who hid).

So, correct the glitch. he's alive.

He owes people money who paid out benefits on his deadness.

He owes people money for unpaid debts (child support).

Or execute him, to make reality match the data.

It's really that simple.


The fact that Ohio has a mechanism to declare somebody dead, and a mechanism to repeal it with a short time window is a flaw in their legal system. Obviously nobody foresaw such an occurrence, but the point of having a human on the bench is to resolve such unlikely intersections of reality and law.

You do not change laws just tike that. There is a legislative process for that that is outside of the judicial's power. Sucks when thing like the present thing is happening.

 

[Umbran]

This seems to be a failing of simple logic, the second I've heard in the last week.

Except, you are forgetting something vital to the logic...

The fact that Ohio has a mechanism to declare somebody dead, and a mechanism to repeal it with a short time window is a flaw in their legal system.

No. The lack of a mechanism to restore it after a long time is the flaw.

Obviously nobody foresaw such an occurrence, but the point of having a human on the bench is to resolve such unlikely intersections of reality and law.

The thing you are forgetting is that there is a hierarchy of people on benches. This ruling came from a county probate court, that has rather limited powers and scope. If he appeals, taking it to higher courts, he'd eventually reach the point where he gets someone who could execute the required change.

Meanwhile, life will be a little tough for him. Tough noogies. The guy is in this position because he ran off from supporting his kids. His claim on sympathies for inconvenience was forfeit some time ago.

 

[Umbran]

This seems to be a failing of simple logic, the second I've heard in the last week.

Except, you are forgetting something vital to the logic...

The fact that Ohio has a mechanism to declare somebody dead, and a mechanism to repeal it with a short time window is a flaw in their legal system.

No. The lack of a mechanism to restore it after a long time is the flaw.

Obviously nobody foresaw such an occurrence, but the point of having a human on the bench is to resolve such unlikely intersections of reality and law.

The thing you are forgetting is that there is a hierarchy of people on benches. This ruling came from a county probate court, that has rather limited powers and scope. If he appeals, taking it to higher courts, he'd eventually reach the point where he gets someone who could execute the required change.

Meanwhile, life will be a little tough for him. Tough noogies. The guy is in this position because he ran off from supporting his kids. His claim on sympathies for inconvenience was forfeit some time ago.